IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
March 7, 2007
SANJAY ANDONISSAMY, PLAINTIFF,
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge William J. Hibbler
Magistrate Judge Ian H. Levin
HEWLETT-PACKARD'S MOTION TO ENTER JUDGMENT
Defendant, Hewlett-Packard Company ("Hewlett-Packard"), by its attorneys, respectfully moves that the Court enter judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff, Sanjay Andonissamy ("Plaintiff"). In support of this Motion, Hewlett-Packard states as follows:
1. On December 6, 2006, Hewlett-Packard filed a motion for summary judgment in this case.
2. On December 11, 2006, this Court entered an order setting a briefing schedule giving Plaintiff until January 10, 2007 to file his response to Hewlett-Packard's motion for summary judgment. A copy of the December 11, 2006 order is attached as Exhibit A.
3. Plaintiff did not file a response to Hewlett-Packard's motion for summary judgment by January 10, 2007.
4. To date, Plaintiff has not filed a response to Hewlett-Packard's motion for summary judgment.
5. The failure of a party to respond to a motion for summary judgment and its accompanying statement of material facts constitutes an admission of those facts. LR 56.1(b)(3); Laborers' Pension Fund v. Loucon Construction, Inc., No. 98 C 6227, 2004 WL 2538298, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 28, 2004); see also Smith v. Lamz, 321 F.3d 680, 683 (7th Cir. 2003) ("We have consistently held that a failure to respond by the non-movant as mandated by the local rules results in an admission.").
6. Because Plaintiff has not responded to Hewlett-Packard's motion for summary judgment, the facts in its statement of material facts are now deemed admitted. Furthermore, Hewlett-Packard has shown in its motion for summary judgment and in its statement of material facts that no genuine issue of material fact exists and it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Indeed, by failing to respond to any of the arguments contained in Hewlett-Packard's motion, Plaintiff has conceded such arguments and waived any objection. Accordingly, summary judgment should be entered in Hewlett-Packard's favor.
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons Defendant, Hewlett-Packard Company, respectfully requests that this Court enter summary judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff, Sanjay Andonissamy, and for such other relief as the Court deems proper.
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.